Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#291

Post by fastball » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:54 AM UTC

cynix wrote: post #278

hackingthenews wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Apple and Google is doing is in many ways effectively price control and inhibits free market dynamics. For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store, which makes the app store appear com…

> For example Apple demand that app developers price their apps in the app store similar to the same service in other stores (website, Google play store, etc), even though they are taking a huge 30% cut. So Spotify can't price their product 30% more expensive in the app store False. You can price your app/IAP higher, you just can't tell the user it's cheaper elsewhere.

You can tell it's a well-functioning market because one participant is making money off of forced information asymmetries.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#292

Post by fastball » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #153

I find the group think here to be incredible, and you all will likely be very disappointed when the legal system winds up supporting Apple. Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls, which is completely contrary to a free market, and ultimately undermines the end user experience of having a trusted, secure store. Perhaps Google or Apple’s power is so strong as to warrant regulation - but…

The problem is that vertical integration and market penetration has really changed what it means to be anti-competitive in the modern world.

Apple has built a vertically-integrated flywheel. Customers do not have choice. Their choices are between iOS and Android, which isn't much choice at all.

And if you already have bought into either ecosystem, you have even less choice without resulting in significant cost to you, the consumer.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#293

Post by m4rtink » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:04 AM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #223

g_p wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest issues with Google play store review is they won't actually tell developers which rule they're breaking, as you point out. This is so incredibly developer-hostile that the fact developers keep using the play store pretty much helps make the case they're acting in an anticompetitive manner. It certainly is interesting to note Google removed the title "Non-competition" from clause 4.5 of their develo…

I absolutely agree that from a developer point of view, this is awful, but just to play devil's advocate here, the reasoning generally given for these is that bad actors tend to tweak their apps to bypass rules a lot faster and efficiently if you always tell them exactly what to fix to get unbanned. I agree developers shouldn't be treated like this, but it still is true that malicious apps are a real problem and bad…

So due to few bad actors everyone should suffer ? One would hope collective punishment is a thing of the past...

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#294

Post by fastball » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:05 AM UTC

realityking wrote: post #251

ehsankia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't think 30% is particularly high in normal app selling scenarios. The two bigger issues with Apple's system are 1. The complete control over the ecosystem, which is gated and opaque. No alternatives to bypass the App Store. 2. 30% is fine for single app sales, but when you're an app that sells monthly subscriptions or tons of in-game content, it just doesn't scale the same.

The problem is if the %age cut for iAP was lower than for app purchases, every app would become free with an iAP to unlock. For subscriptions, Apple changed the rules a few years ago to only take a 15% cut of renewals after 12 months.

How is that a problem? Then Apple could just start charging for actual distribution – i.e. actually charging at the point where they claim to be delivering value, rather than inserting themselves into a transaction where they add nothing.

The argument against that is then generally "but what about free apps?", to which I say: unmonetized apps get distributed by Apple for free. Monetized ones pay for distribution + a fee (maybe 30%).

So if it costs Apple $300 to deliver your app + updates to X devices every month, they charge you $390.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#295

Post by fastball » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:09 AM UTC

I think given the nature of modern multi-nationals with vertical integration and hugely diversified product spaces, we need to rethink anti-trust in general.

My test is fairly simple: are you generating value and capturing some portion of it at the point of generation, or are you doing something else? Anything that is "something else" should at the very least be questioned. Questions 10x if the party doing "something else" is trying to encourage information asymmetry as part of this. e.g. Apple telling app developers that not only can they not integrate another payment option in their apps, they can't even inform users that such an option exists elsewhere.

Arguably the main issue in this case is that Apple is not just requiring themselves to be the payment gateway in transactions where they are involved (getting an app onto your device), they also want to insert themselves into transactions where they provide no value (e.g. subscriptions). In the case of my Spotify subscription, Apple is not paying for bandwidth, payment processing costs, or anything else, but they still get a cut.

If you're capturing value from a transaction you're not directly involved in, I think that's a problem. Apple's argument is that they are enabling such things by building the device/operating system, and historically that has been a valid argument, but I think we've come to the point where that just isn't enough anymore. You need to either directly be providing value in that particular transaction, otherwise it's problematic. You just end up with too many cases like this.

Is running the App Store expensive? Then charge for actual costs. But this sort of bait and switch of "we're providing distribution but are inserting ourselves in subscriptions we have no hand in" is only possible due to their market position.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#296

Post by microtherion » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #212

parasubvert wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft’s case was about parlaying their monopoly in Windows to the browser space by making Internet Explorer an intrinsic part of Windows. This is completely different from the #1 and #2 smart phone marketshare players charging a 30% cut as the exclusive software reseller to their own platform. The original At&T was allowed to be a monopoly for 80+ years because it was in the public interest. The 1982 breakup was…

There is so much misremembering of the Microsoft antitrust case, especially by people who didn’t follow it closely at the time, and you’re very right to remind everyone that the core issue was asking the government to intervene to maintain the viability of $40 closed source browser licenses. MSFT “lost” the case but the remedies amounted to a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile the market in its broadest sense innovated in…

> MSFT “lost” the case but the remedies amounted to a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile the market in its broadest sense innovated

That is true, but there is the argument that some of this innovation was possible because Microsoft restrained its behavior while the case was pending.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#297

Post by nodamage » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:22 AM UTC

comex wrote: post #290

nodamage wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are relevant, because in order to successfully win an antitrust tying claim under US law you need to prove the seller had sufficient market power in a tying product in order to coerce buyers into buying the tied product. In this case, once you buy an iPhone, you're forced to use Apple's system to make in-app purchases. The tying product is the phone, and the tied product is the in-app purchase. So you need to sh…

Epic's lawsuit does not accuse Apple of tying App Store sales to phone sales. Two of the nine counts are about allegedly tying in-app purchases to app sales, and the rest don't involve tying. (Neither does Apple v. Pepper .)

I wasn't actually talking about Epic's lawsuit.

But since you mentioned it, I'm not really sure that Epic will succeed with their argument that the "iOS App Distribution" market is the relevant tying product market absent an analysis of the overall smartphone market.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#298

Post by marcus_holmes » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:24 AM UTC

rubber_duck wrote: post #5

Really at this point Apple control over app store is anti-competitive (and Google over play store), having to rely on community outrage to get stuff like this turned is ridiculous. They should create legislation to control access to all app stores to prevent this rent seeking - force app stores to treat all apps equally according to store defined guidelines (including store owners apps) - any submissions have to be r…

I think it's interesting that this story hit the front page at the same time as the one about Facebook's fact-checking shenanigans, which concluded that leaving this in the hands of a private company wasn't working.

Are FAANG (well possibly not 'N') about to face nationalisation? Or United-Nationalisation given that they're all global organisations and having them run by the completely dysfunctional US government isn't a result anyone wants?

Can government really step in to control the workings of the Apple Store and change the rules without drastically effecting Apple's business? If so, what responsibility does government have if that drastic effect stops the business from being profitable?

Can government enforce fact-checking on Facebook (or Google) without affecting its advertising business? Again, if so, what responsibility does it bear if that business collapses?

Can government ignore it and allow the tech giants to continue uncontrolled? That doesn't seem to be working either.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#299

Post by didibus » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:24 AM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #165

rubber_duck wrote: post #5

Really at this point Apple control over app store is anti-competitive (and Google over play store), having to rely on community outrage to get stuff like this turned is ridiculous. They should create legislation to control access to all app stores to prevent this rent seeking - force app stores to treat all apps equally according to store defined guidelines (including store owners apps) - any submissions have to be r…

> any submissions have to be reviewed in a reasonable amount of time and if declined must receive specific violations of the guidelines on which the denial is based Competing app stores solves this 100% because there would definitely be a market for a developer friendly app store.

Agreed, I think legislation should just force Apple to allow for competing app stores. At the end of the day, the users make the choice. Epic for example made their own store on PC to rival Steam's 30% cut. And they could do the same for iOS and Android, but on iOS that isn't even an option.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#300

Post by kergonath » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 10:24 AM UTC

tsycho wrote: post #45

kergonath wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we’ll never know if it would have turned out differently at another time. They can be stubborn, but they can also recognise mistakes and correct them. That said, there is no comparison: forcing a developer to add features to an app is nothing like enforcing the TOS the developer agreed with and is trying to subvert.

Yes, we know. Ask any iOS developer friend of yours and you'll know that Apple never backs down, until the incident gets publicity. And the non-malicious explanation for that is simple. The majority of the million apps in the app store are small fry to them, and they can't scale support to that level in any empathetic rational manner. My wishlist for legislation is: 1/ Apple has to allow side loading of apps (make it…

Yeah it certainly is perfectible. I’d just like to retain decent security at the platform level. We know that if sideloading can be enabled, at some point Adobe will require it because they won’t be bothered.

I am conflicted about Sign In with Apple. It’s heavy handed, but I clearly benefit by not having to trust Google or Facebook for this. There should be a standard with several providers, like FIDO, but somehow I don’t see this happening as long as Facebook and Google are utterly dominant.

I completely agree with your third point.